Personal View site logo
Panasonic AG AF100 / AF101
  • 141 Replies sorted by
  • @Shield

    Who cares if it doesn't have any mud... it's looked more video-like than an camcorder. Do you see how bad the skin looks? And how blown-out the sweatshirts are? The worst part is... is that despite everything looking blow-washed out, it looks like it WAS exposed correctly for the blacks. Meaning that this camera just straight-up has mediocre sensor latitude.

    I've seen some good stuff on the AF-100, but it just honestly looks like a video-camera image with shallow DOF. I bet it's a kick-ass run-and-gun documentary/interview cam... but I would never shoot a music video or anything narrative on it.
  • You're right...they don't have the same sensor. The GH-1/2's sensor is actually slightly bigger. The AF is an overall better camera hands down but when it comes to IQ the image on the GH-2 (unhacked) was always better looking. I was excited about the AF when it came out. But image wise...like someone already suggested...why didn't Panasonic put the GH-2's sensor in the AF100.
  • @nomad
    The AF100 actually doesn't use the the same sensor. If I'm not mistaken, it's not quite as good/new as the GH's. I believe the size is different too -- slightly.
    @Shield
    I've got two GH2's, I'd love to have a AF100 -- it's just the price thing. GH2's are kind of annoying with all the bars and brackets and cages and devices you need to attach to make it a functioning video camera. And it's still kind of dorky looking, no matter how you pimp it out. No matter what you do to them, first thing I think is "Stills camera". I'd love to able to just grab a camera and not have to worry about bringing the right ND filters or my Tascam and all the other crap.
  • problem, is AF isnt hacked by DRIFTWOOD!!!!
  • Brian202020 i se manys test and gh2 kick AF100 ass in high quality,did you see the test vr red epic gh2?
  • Why not wait for AF200? 2012?

    If one can make good money off GH2 shooting, he could award himself with AF200 or something... I guess. Still cheaper than M3 beamer :)
  • @Shield
    The AF100's focus peaking is nice but on a GH2 a cheap Ruige monitor can fake it simply by oversharpening the edges. For precise focus pulling, however, the AF100 probably has the advantage. But again, that doesn't fit my shooting style - I use a compact shoulder rig just for focus pulls that the lightweight GH2 is ideally suited for.

    Other great AF100 features I should mention are its variable-frame-rate 1080p slow-motion capabilities and flexible NTSC/PAL support.
  • Anyone watch the Youtube video I posted? I don't see any mud in that video, and it looks unbelievable. Raw Af100 ungraded footage with albeit high end glass.
  • @LPowell - What about focus peaking? It's the jam. :)
  • Time is to early really. Especially considering how far the GH2 has come to draw any sort of comparison.
    I agree with VK here- these topics just create angry discussions.
  • @Shield
    Thanks for pitching the AF100's features in its most favorable light. I've really wanted to find a worthwhile use case for this camera in case a bargain shows up for one in good condition.

    I have to say, though, that very few of the advantages you pointed out fit my shooting style. I never change ISO, iris, white balance, or use auto-focus or face-tracking while recording, nor do I want a 180-degree shutter setting. Haven't yet had a need for a hacksaw with my GH2 and I can make do without dual SD cards and the 4-hour battery.

    What does sound valuable are the AF100's exposure waveform displays and XLR inputs. While it's still only 24Mbps AVCHD and 16-bit audio, the AF100's ability to record video-synced audio tracks makes it an attractive, though expensive, alternative to a Zoom H4n. I can definitely picture using it as a tripod-mounted A-cam for master shots on a well-lit sound stage.
  • @Shield: I agree. There are some things with that camera I love... And I actually like the picture of it, there's just something of it that's clean. But I'm myself is a GH2 owner and I don't know what camera I might get next. If I get one now that is...

    But on to the AF100. Here's a music video I DP'd. We used both an AF100 for the majority of the video, a 5D on the scenes in the car and my GH2 for the shot of the car driving at 0:40 and the tunnel lights. What I wanted to show was that they all work very well together, but also that the AF100 can look amazing depending on what you put infront! We used mostly Canon L lenses and all the close-ups is a Zeiss ZF 50, all lenses which really brought out the camera. For example, compare to the ultra-wide shot of the guy shooting, done with the 7-14 which looks a lot more "video-y" I feel (but still good) compared to the 5D's wide-angle.



  • I keep thinking of other things. For me, the added size and handle of the AF100 gives me better looking handheld shots. I can rest this on my should and shoot.
    Also, and this is very key - lenses work differently on the AF100. For example, in AF mode on the GH2 the 25mm Summilux F/1.4 hunts and breathes quite a bit on the GH2. It just...does not on the AF100; it performs much better. On the Panny four thirds 14-50mm F/2.8-3.5, the OIS motor is much louder and more pronounced on the GH2. This could be due to the location of their respective microphones. Anyway, just thought I'd share. I still love the GH2 and think this site is great; just got tired of the nonsensical AF100 bashing by people who have never picked one up.
  • Sorry, forgot to post the video link (watch in 1080p!)



  • Also forgot to mention the focus peaking works with all lenses; I have it on an ancient Nikon 50mm F/1.4 and it works perfectly. Notice (until now) I didn't mention how badly the colors/aperture change on the GH2 once you press "record", nor tout how great the overcrank/undercrank mode was, nor the XLR inputs, nor the HD-SDI out, or the adjustable far superior viewfinder, or the .... :)

    If you like a GH2 you'll LOVE an AF100. There, I've said my piece.
  • You just cannot compare the Gh2 to the AF100. I have owned both, and I just sold both my GH2's (and yes, I tried all different hacks on the GH2).

    For starters, even in manual video mode on the GH2, I cannot adjust either ISO nor white balance while recording. This matters a great deal - lighting conditions change. No matter what on the GH2, tweaking the custom WB, adjusting Kelvin, trying extensively all the film modes, the color was just not right. The AF-100 has a dedicated autoWB mode, a physical WB button that if depressed also sets the black balance!

    The Af100 has a shutter you can set so it's always using the 180 degree shutter rule.

    The AF100 has "focus peaking" which tremendously assists manual focusing mode - whatever is in focus is highlighted in red, and it works while recording (not just before you hit the button like in the Sony NEX-5N). Gh2 does not have this.

    There are exposure meters on screen. When it's too dark, there are bars on the left; overexposed it's on the right.
    I can mount ANY lens with adapters without taking a hacksaw to them first.
    I can adjust audio input levels for each input channel whether I'm using the built in 384k audio or the XLR inputs on the fly. This a BIG deal.
    Dual SDHC/SXDC card slots.
    Stock battery lasts over 4 hours.
    PUSH AUTO FOCUS! I can't believe you AF100 users aren't talking about this. While in MF mode I can push a button QUIETLY and refocus. I have to go "clickity-clack" on the GH2 and toggle back to AFC/AFS to do this on the GH2.
    Nice big quiet IRIS wheel in the front, instead of a noisy click wheel that you'll hear back in the recording.
    At the end of the day I found I was never happy with the colors/white balance with the GH2. There was something wrong with all of them to a certain degree. This has been resolved with the Af100.
    The AF100 does have face tracking for lenses that support auto-focus. It does work.
    Form factor is better in many situations and worse when you're trying to be discrete; I will give that either way to the Gh2.

    Watch this video in 1080p mode and you'll see what the Af100 is capable of.

    By the way, I bought a very low use (14 hours) AF100 with an extra battery and all original boxes and documentation for $3400. So the prices have come down somewhat, and I've found that I really just love shooting with the Af100. It's a considerable upgrade in every way to the GH2 with the exception of no more ETC mode and the size. That's it.

  • I think AF100 is a reasonable deal. Nicely designed, XLR, headphones, overcrank, external recording, and very important ND filter built in (why FS100 doesn't is beyond me). Yes GH2 is good, but AF100 offers total package. FS100 has nice sensor, but total package is less nice. If you compare AF100 with other camcorders it's a good deal for the image you get. If you compare what you get a few years ago, it is mind blowing what you can get today as a filmmaker in this price range.
  • I give Pany credit for even putting the AF100 together as quickly as they did. I just don't think they went all the way in on the AF100. It's almost as if they thought they could pull a fast one on dumb DSLR converts or something. As if we wouldn't notice the flaws. The noise levels and the inability to handle highlights. I really don't understand that kind of thinking. It's like didn't you use your own camera before you sent it out? Don't they have some trusted professionals they could give the cams to in order to test them and get real feedback? At $5,000.00 we have every right to expect a little better than they did. It didn't have to be a RED or Alexa, but surely they could've done better.
  • Sure, horses for courses! If you are into documentaries with a small crew, the AF100 is a good tool.

    But if you are shooting a feature, I'd use separate audio pre-mixing/recording by a specialist anyway (which is easier having TC again).

    But why, oh why didn't put Panny the sensor of the Lumix into the AF100?
  • @Aria - "All of those additional things in one package makes it more acceptable at a price that's gonna be about $2,700.00 more than a GH2"

    Yeah, it's all good, it's just too bad the AF100 isn't hackable as well...
  • It's Ok to hack together all of the extra items needed to match the AF100 as most DSLR users do, but some just want the simplicity and quality of the AF100's included features and I can understand that. The price difference isn't as great once you start to add in a quality ND and XLR Mic Pres. The built in overcrank/undercrank is a nice touch and having clean HDMI output at 4:2:2 and timecode are important features for many users. AF100 also has dual SDXC slots with relay record for extended recording and programmable dedicated buttons for quicker setting changes. All of those additional things in one package makes it more acceptable at a price that's gonna be about $2,700.00 more than a GH2 after adding some of the gear needed to add some of the features of the AF100 and still the AF100 would have functions that the GH2 won't have. It's just a different tool!!!
  • I think the discussion started comparing sensors. The AF100 has very useful features, but for quite a price compared to the GH2.
    Let's compare:
    – 1) ND's can be replaced by a var ND, the best one is around 150,- €
    – 2) Admitted, ext. TC can't be done with GH2
    – 3) Audio features can be replaced with separate recorders like the H2/H4 and synced with DualEyes (less than 500,- €)
    – 4) Waveform/vectorscope? Ok, on GH2 we just have histogram
    – 5) False color assist? GH2 has enlarger
    – 6) True, GH2 has only crappy HDMI (until now?)
    - 7) GH2 has the same
    - 8) Same for GH2
    - 9) Same here
    - 10) Only 60i plus de-interlace – less quality, but possible
    - 11) Wait and see
  • Most of the tests I've seen AF100 v. GH2 unhacked give a slight edge to the GH2. If someone has some tests showing the opposite, love to see it. I think even Barry Green has stopped shilling for the AF. Lost cause.
  • It would seem to me that working within the AF100's sweet spot, anyone should be able to make a great looking film. I think most of the time there's a tendency to overstate the negatives since the AF100 is supposed to be a "DSLR Killer". I don't look at it like that. The AF100 is far from perfect but it has it's positives for a real work environment that may present conditions where it's needed to have Dedicated buttons, ND filter, XLR and SDI outputs. Plus having low Moire/Aliasing and Rolling Shutter and a clean 4:2:2 output may be desirable for many.

    I have yet to see an direct comparison of the best that the AF100 can do and the best of the GH2, so as to really determine the amount of difference we're talking about visually. I have a feeling that the differences are not as great as it is often stated to be.

    But again for a working situation where things are happening live or time is limited and you've got to get things happening quickly the AF100 has it's strengths:

    (1) Built-in ND’s (a first for a single chip camera)

    (2) Time code/external time code (not available in HDSLRs)

    (3) XLR audio with manual control, phantom power, headphones, speaker, uncompressed audio recording

    (4) Waveform/vectorscope, zebras

    (5) False color focus assist

    (6) HD-SDI, HDMI and composite video monitoring

    (7) Wide variety of lens mounts, allowing for the use of a wide variety of lenses (including PL mount) without modifying the camera

    (8) Half the rolling shutter skew of an HDSLR

    (9) No aliasing/moire worth noting

    (10) The ability to undercrank & overcrank at 1080/60p over 24p or 30p

    (11) Extensive menu control of camera parameters (not offered in HDSLRs)